Photos by Rommel deLeon

PART 1: THE INTEGRAL ART SCENE

THE MANIFEST: Let's start right off with how you became involved with the Integral Institute. Were you specifically recruited by folk singer Stuart Davis to be a part of the Integral Salon of Art? Or were you one of those guys (like me) who sent them 10,000 emails until they relented? A little of both?

MATTHEW DALLMAN: Stuart did ask Hannah and I to be two of the original members of the IS of Art. But there's a story behind that. I am an Internet success story, in a sense. I didn't send 10,000 emails to I-I, but I did write about 300 posts to Shambhala's Ken Wilber online forum. My intent in writing in the Forum was never specifically to get involved with I-I, though I was interested in doing so, of course. I was just a guy who had lots of ideas and enjoyed the ability to write as much as I wanted on whatever topic, and to interact with people on the forum who shared intent to talk about Ken's work, and sometimes get playfully vicious. As much as I could, I tried to reconcile my own ideas and perspectives with Ken's integral theory. I did want to start to learn how to operate in integral terrain.

I wrote about lots of topics, art included. In doing so I met several artists and creative people, one of whom is Erik Fabian. In getting to know Erik via email while I was living in Brooklyn, he told me he had met Stuart at one of his Chicago gigs. Stuart had invited him to Boulder to be part of an arts group. What amazed me was that Erik told Stuart directly about me, my Spiral Suite for Alto Saxophone, and my interest in integral art in general. At Erik's suggestion, I wrote Stuart immediately with my interest in participating in the arts group. Stuart immediately responded and invited Hannah and I to the first meeting, in February 2003. That weekend, by the way, was unbelievably cool. The collective energy from the 30-odd participants was like something turned on a switch in all of us at the exact same time.

Through my interactions in the IS of Art in the subsequent months, and with people in I-I, I started to take a bit of a leadership role This is especially the case as the July meeting approached. Things started to really cook in many ways. A week before that meeting, Ken wrote me directly to say I was a finalist for the position of IU-Art Host. Blown away, I immediately wrote Stuart to get his take. He suggested to me, quite clearly, to go for it. Actually, he said, "I think you should wear the fucking helmet". A week later, during the July IS of Art meeting, Ken offered me the job of Host, which I of course readily accepted. It was a wild ride before I became Host, and it's been a wild ride since. I am extremely fortunate and blessed with this opportunity, and I don't take it lightly.



TM: How did you first discover "integralism" (i.e. Ken Wilber, Aurobindo, Mike Murphy, etc.)?

MD: I was living in Boston at the time. Hannah was attending Emerson College. Two factors led me to explore Ken's work, and I'm not sure which came first. We were subscribers to the Utne Reader magazine, and there was an interview with Ken in one of their issues on spirituality. I read it and was quite intrigued, though at this point all I really remember from the interview was that he was drinking a can of beer during the interview. The other factor was the Trident Bookstore in downtown Boston, on Newberry Ave. It was one of our favorites, an intimate combination of restaurant/coffeeshop and bookstore. As I perused the stacks, I noticed almost an entire shelf filled with the books by this guy Ken Wilber. There was a staff recommendation-type note taped to the shelf which caught my eye -- black paper with silver ink. I think it said something about "here's a philosopher who combines Freud with Buddha." That tends to catch your eye. At least my eye.

I think the first book I touched was No Boundary. I didn't buy it, but I felt the resonance and effect of the book from the opening paragraphs. For a couple weeks, I would always pick up a Wilber book to peruse when we came to the Trident (which seemed like every other day), though the first book I actually purchased was Marriage of Sense and Soul from a bookstore in the Boston 'burbs that was going out of business and had all their books for sale at half off. Naturally, I ate that book up, and immediately purchased another, read it, and repeated that process through about seven books.

Needless to say, Hannah was quite taken aback by all this, perhaps quite confused, but I persisted with this new and unbelievable energy that popped as I read each of his books. And through Ken's works, I started to read, as you say, other integral writers, Aurobindo, Murphy and many others. It's an ongoing discovery that will take at least nine lifetimes to master...but it's a ride, no doubt about that.



TM: Do read much of the criticism of Ken Wilber (i.e. Christian DeQuincy, Andrew Smith, Mark Edwards, Ray Harris, etc.)? Do you think the criticism is important to keep it mind, perhaps even to the point of re-addressing some of the very basic foundations of AQAL theory (I am thinking specifically here of Andrew Smith's attack on the four quadrant model.)?

MD: Yes, I've read all of those writers, and most if not all of the critical works by them. Of course it is important to keep criticism in mind. No one can be 100% wrong, and many times these and other critics (you might also add Jeff Meyerhoff to that list) offer very good points to consider, and often wildly different perspectives on similar material. I particularly enjoy the work of Mark Edwards, and he and I have had several exchanges.

From my own perspective, as I first read Ken's work, then read the criticisms of it, I was already on my way to developing integral approaches to art and music. Because those critics concentrate in other areas besides art (because most of Ken's work does not talk directly about art), I find their work to be helpful, but not particularly relevant to my own work with art and music.

In many ways, often the critics are disputing a component or area of Ken's work, and that's fine. I have yet to find the dispute that calls into question the whole field of integral theory and practice. This is by definition a very big tent. It is now a cliché (which shows you how far we've come) but everyone's perspectives are generally valid at least in some way.

Of course I always think it is of value when Ken addresses a critic directly. Beyond those listed above, I have a certain dream that Ken and Camile Paglia record a dialogue about life, the Kosmos, and everything. She is a giant, and in many ways quite brilliant. She was one of the first mainstream critics of what Ken came to call "Boomeritis". And she is a decisive and clear interpreter of art and culture. While not at all a critic of Ken's work, Camile most likely has at least a passing familiarity with Ken's work. I'd love to see those sparks fly.

I'd also like to see a bit of a discussion between Christopher Cowan (the co-author of Spiral Dynamics) and Ken, because something deep down tells me that we could all learn from that exchange.

Alvar Audio perform at the Dairy Center during the IU-Art weekend
(Matts L to R: Dallman, Rentschler, Demerritt)

TM: You yourself have written a number of essays which have appeared on the World of Ken Wilber site. How have they been received? Have older artists contacted you about them?

MD: I'm continually surprised about their reception. From all accounts, the reception has been very positive. It all takes my breath away. Many people have written me with their support, suggestions, and ideas. I wrote the essays hoping to be understood, in the sense of applying Ken's work to the specific application of art creation. There hasn't been much written about integral art by Ken or anyone else. So I've tried to bushwhack into what is more or less unexplored territory, though I'm hardly alone. It helps that we have a great group of artists in IU-Art.

In a different way, Frank Visser has been very supportive and helpful in agreeing to publish my work. People in Integral Institute have been a big help, with feedback, critique, and creative ideas. I have most of the essays posted also on my website, and my site has gotten hits from over 50 countries. It's amazing. Through my webstats program, and I can see what are the most hit pages, and my essays are just below my Blog as far as number of hits. A lot of people who live in Poland are really digging the stuff, it blows me away. My wife is mostly Polish, so maybe there's some invisible energy I'm sending out. Hi to the integral community in Poland-- we will have to meet up very soon in real time!

Perhaps the greatest support has come from Matt Rentschler, my buddy, kosmic cowboy friend, and who is an amazing poet. From day one he has me feedback for my work, even in its infant stages. His perspectives are unbelievably informed by integral/AQAL theory, his ability to listen with deep attention is unmatched, and he is a damn funny guy to boot. Me and him have a band, you know, called Alvar Audio. He is a riot and we keep it real, amidst this wild Integral U ride we are both on.

And yes, older artists have contacted me. Philip Rubinov Jacobson and Haydn Anthony, for example, are two amazing artists that have written with their encouragement. I have corresponded with composers John Kennedy and W.A. Mathieu. It is amazing.



TM: How do you handle the charge, mostly by cynical post-modernists, that what we are doing is "New Agey" and "weird"? Is it New Agey and weird?

MD: Well, any authentic integral approach would take New Agey and weird into account, eh? Really those are just some words, used and abused to the point of debasement. The integral approach tries to take as much into account as it reasonable and possible. Not all at one time, like some sort a cacophonic head-game/maze that stops you before you begin, but through the course of an experience, an endeavor, a project, a context, a job, a career, a song, or something in time. It is an approach that can be both surprisingly intuitive to grasp, but quite deep and revealing through continued revisiting, reflection, and practice.

Integral theory at this point is still primarily contained within Ken's starkly brilliant works. In many ways, Integral Institute, Integral University, and the worldwide integral culture are still incubating and hatching the multifarious ways integral theory can be applied in various disciplines and endeavors. So criticism at this point is still somewhat premature. And if people are authentic in their criticisms, the doors are open to work within integral culture to help us develop better ways of thinking and doing.

I am continually astounded by the depth and span of people's experience whom I meet in the integral community. This is not some uniform, monolithic culture where one idea can describe everyone.

That said, everyone I meet in the integral community is very aware of the problems with eclecticism, that of picking and choosing something new from a variety of disparate sources. And that is one downside of the integral maps we make -- they look like eclecticism, from a 3rd person point of view. But as you actually start to walk the walk, tread the integral terrain, and follow in the injunctions, you realize quick that you need to commit to a particular path, else you simply aren't going to get anything out of it.

And I want to add this last bit. Though many claim otherwise, what we can loosely call the New Age is remarkably uninformed by world history. Integral culture, from my view, includes the desire to stabilize and come to balance with the many gems and bits of value in the New Age. But there is so much to take into account, especially in terms of the various ways traditional, modern, and postmodern have manifested in different cultures through the course of history. New Age is an important part of all that, but it is a part, nothing more.



TM: I just got an email from a graphic designer in San Francisco -- who is into Ken Wilber and is committed zen practitioner -- asking me "how do I know if what I am doing is integral art or not?" How would you define integral art? What can he do RIGHT NOW to bring a little bit of "unitas multiplex" into his art-making?

MD: Integral means taking everything into account, in a comprehensive and non-marginalizing way. So the question is, what are your boundaries of "everything"? Specifically for art, the question is, what are your own definitions of everything that relates with art creation? So we first want to talk about those because the fundamental step is coming to a basic agreement of what "everything art" actually entails. Now, just because we want to be able to take everything into account in our art-making, we have to be careful as we apply that conception. The danger is that you might fall into the trap that you feel like in order to be integral you have to take everything into account, and do that everything more or less at once, simultaneously. That is not exploring infinite potential with integral. That is misusing integral to create infinite madness and confusion.

One of the ways to begin to enact integral in your art-making is to, RIGHT NOW, examine the basic perspectives available to you.

Can you look at your own interior intentions? What are you aiming for with your art? What are you trying to convey? Can you look at your intentions openly, honestly, and fully?

Can you then look at your current behavior right now? Can you examine your body posture, the objects you are working with, the repeated operations you perform? Can you do so openly and fully? Can you love your behavior?

And can you look at the meaning your work might create for others? Can you take that into account, even partially? Is what you intended with your art at all conveyed by the created form of those intentions? Can you examine the meaning, the value, the effect your work might have, and can you do so openly, as that openness, and as that honesty?

These are the ways we can start to incorporate integral theory into our art creation. But importantly, this is only the start of this endeavor. There is always more to say.


TM: Where do you see integral art in five years? In ten years?

MD: I see the integral art community as vital energy generator on a worldwide basis. We already have hints of that, even today. People are legitimately excited by the prospects of integral art, given the brilliance of Ken's work, which has blazed the paths for all of us to create our own integrally-informed culture in all the spheres -- the theosphere, the noosphere, the biosphere, even the blogosphere! Early in the existence of IU-Art, Ken reminded us all that the Internet is THE way to get the message and information out there, and he is 100% right about that. Given the proliferation of the web, integral art is already a worldwide energy. My own website gets regular traffic from every continent, and the same goes for other in the integral art community. I can learn a new angle and experience of integral theory in an art context, and do so right along with a person in China, a person in Poland, and a person in Seattle. We are all learning, and how exciting is that!


PART TWO will be posted next week.